I've seen a lot of criticism on how the Democrats message their image and promote themselves. The Presidential "bully pulpit" has changed due to the rise of social media and the changes to communication over the last few decades and is no longer as effective as before. The big tent of the Democratic Party is very hard to manage and want very different things. It's hard to have a unified message if say Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders are talking to reporters.
I believe you mentioned on Twitter that Democrats can't win non-college educated whites without changing their positions on race issues (which Democrats shouldn't do on principle and would fracture the Democratic coalition). I think this is the core issue. Due to polarization, the party coalition are harder to change. I personally don't think Democrats deserve to win if they throw minorities and their principles under the bus to try to win non-college whites.
Joe Manchin is a more moderate and arguably more racially conservative Democrat. Some more conservative friends of mine have suggested that Manchin should be the face of the Democratic Party. I don't think the majority of the members of the Democratic Party will accept that due to the large ideological differences between Manchin and themselves.
Is the Democratic Party "stuck" due its current coalition and we're headed towards minority rule?
Think back to the signals. If you think Manchin is one of the more "racially conservative" Democrats, then the party giving him such a high position could signal to racially conservative voters that there is room in the Democratic party for this. This is arguably what happened with Barack Obama picking Joe Biden as his VP in 2008, though racism and racial resentment were not as strong of predictors back then.
I agree. However, choosing Manchin as the nominee or VP would signal to black voters that the party may not be committed to voting rights for example as they historically were.
I don't think that trade off would be worth it. It's all about whether polarization/partisanship negates those signals and the cost benefit analysis.
What's the cost benefit analysis of the Democrats trying to reach out to "racially conservative" voters vs the impact that would have with black voters? Of course, this is a thought exercise, so we can't know anything for certain.
Hi Elliott,
I've seen a lot of criticism on how the Democrats message their image and promote themselves. The Presidential "bully pulpit" has changed due to the rise of social media and the changes to communication over the last few decades and is no longer as effective as before. The big tent of the Democratic Party is very hard to manage and want very different things. It's hard to have a unified message if say Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders are talking to reporters.
I believe you mentioned on Twitter that Democrats can't win non-college educated whites without changing their positions on race issues (which Democrats shouldn't do on principle and would fracture the Democratic coalition). I think this is the core issue. Due to polarization, the party coalition are harder to change. I personally don't think Democrats deserve to win if they throw minorities and their principles under the bus to try to win non-college whites.
Joe Manchin is a more moderate and arguably more racially conservative Democrat. Some more conservative friends of mine have suggested that Manchin should be the face of the Democratic Party. I don't think the majority of the members of the Democratic Party will accept that due to the large ideological differences between Manchin and themselves.
Is the Democratic Party "stuck" due its current coalition and we're headed towards minority rule?
Possibly.
-Elliot
Hi Elliot,
Here's an idea. In 2024, Kamala Harris runs for president with Joe Manchin as her VP, or the other way around.
I'm not sure how much that would change things, but the thought exercise is useful!
Hi Elliott,
Interesting. Would a VP pick have that much of an impact? History would say no.
Think back to the signals. If you think Manchin is one of the more "racially conservative" Democrats, then the party giving him such a high position could signal to racially conservative voters that there is room in the Democratic party for this. This is arguably what happened with Barack Obama picking Joe Biden as his VP in 2008, though racism and racial resentment were not as strong of predictors back then.
I agree. However, choosing Manchin as the nominee or VP would signal to black voters that the party may not be committed to voting rights for example as they historically were.
I don't think that trade off would be worth it. It's all about whether polarization/partisanship negates those signals and the cost benefit analysis.
What's the cost benefit analysis of the Democrats trying to reach out to "racially conservative" voters vs the impact that would have with black voters? Of course, this is a thought exercise, so we can't know anything for certain.